kent state shooting

I am just saying that that is what happens when a frustrated government decides that these students protesting the war must be taught a lesson. So they send the military in to forcibly squash this annoying protest movement before it gets too popular. When the students refuse to be intimidated by the armed, aggressive military force, and leave the area, the inevitable happens. Tempers flare, and the flashpoint is reached. The government knew this would happen all along, and went to great lengths to excuse the murders after the fact, even printing defamatory and totally irrelevent things like that the girls weren't wearing underwear.......in their attempt to shift public opinion to their side. What panties have to do with being shot to death by a soldier in your own country while engaging in your legally protected right to protest....it was only used to give the more conservative citizens a reason to dislike the murdered girls, and therefore more easily accept their murders.
imho

 

Very Well Said Blackguard Xiii

 

THEY did the same thing at Ruby Ridge and at Waco Texas.

 

Then to finish it off Clinton and Reno hit us with a assault rifle ban "they are not true assault rifles" but how convinient.

 

I don't know much about Ruby Ridge, but I agree that Waco was a total crime. The authorities were way too aggressive, and there is still alot that is not yet properly explained regarding how, who, why, and when they did what they did.

I submit 'Wounded Knee' as another example of the government using the military to flex its muscles when it doesn't know how to legitimately deal with sincere, dedicated, and informed opposition within its own borders.

 

Massacre at Ruby Ridge



I suspect few government officials realized in 1992 the widespread anger and resentment their actions in a remote area of Idaho would inspire. Randy Weaver and his family were just some more "troublemakers" who didn't like the multicultural cesspool and wanted to be left alone. They would be "taken down hard and fast."

While most of the American sheeple paid no attention to this atrocity, a substantial minority on both sides of the political spectrum were outraged and wouldn't forget. Now the story continues.

Please note that, damning as the Justice Department investigation is, FBI officials are now believed to have destroyed evidence to keep it away from investigators.

Don Black

The Wall Street Journal, June 30, 1995, p. A14.



Ruby Ridge: The Justice Report

By James Bovard

The 1992 confrontation between federal agents and the Randy Weaver family in Ruby Ridge, Idaho, has become one of the most controversial and widely discussed examples of the abuse of federal power. The Justice Department completed a 542-page investigation on the case last year but has not yet made the report public. However, the report was acquired by Legal Times newspaper, which this week placed the text on the Internet. The report reveals that federal officials may have acted worse than even some of their harshest critics imagined.

This case began after Randy Weaver was entrapped, as an Idaho jury concluded, by an undercover Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms agent to sell him sawed-off shotguns.

While federal officials have claimed that the violent confrontation between the Weavers and the government began when the Weavers ambushed federal marshals, the report tells a very different story. A team of six U.S. marshals, split into two groups, trespassed onto Mr. Weaver's land on Aug. 21, 1992. One of the marshals threw rocks at the Weaver's cabin to see how much noise was required to agitate the Weaver's dogs. A few minutes later, Randy Weaver, Kevin Harris, and 13-year-old Sammy Weaver came out of the cabin and began following their dogs. Three U.S. marshals were soon tearing through the woods.

At one point, U.S. Marshal Larry Cooper "told the others that it was ['expletive deleted'] for them to continue running and that he did not want to 'run down the trail and get shot in the back.' He urged them to take up defensive positions. The others agreed.... William Degan ... took a position behind a stump...."

As Sammy Weaver and Kevin Harris came upon the marshals, gunfire erupted. Sammy was shot in the back and killed while running away from the scene (probably by Marshal Cooper, according to the report), and Marshal Degan was killed by Mr. Harris. The jury concluded that Mr. Harris's action was legitimate self-defense; the Justice report concluded it was impossible to know who shot first.

Several places in the report deal with the possibility of a government coverup. After the firefight between the marshals and the Weavers and Mr. Harris, the surviving marshals were taken away to rest and recuperate. The report observed, "We question the wisdom of keeping the marshals together at the condominium for several hours, while awaiting interviews with the FBI. Isolating them in that manner created the appearance and generated allegations that they were fabricating stories and colluding to cover up the true circumstances of the shootings."

After the death of the U.S. marshal, the FBI was called in. A source of continuing fierce debate across America is: Did the FBI set out to apprehend and arrest Randy Weaver and Kevin Harris -- or simply to kill them? Unfortunately, the evidence from the Justice Department report is damning in the extreme on this count.

The report noted, "We have been told by observers on the scene that law enforcement personnel made statements that the matter would be handled quickly and that the situation would be 'taken down hard and fast.' " The FBI issued Rules of Engagement that declared that its snipers "can and should" use deadly force against armed males outside the cabin.

The report noted that a member of an FBI SWAT team from Denver "remembered the Rules of Engagement as 'if you see 'em, shoot 'em.' " The task force report noted, "since those Rules which contained 'should' remained in force at the crisis scene for days after the August 22 shooting, it is inconceivable to us that FBI Headquarters remained ignorant of the exact wording of the Rules of Engagement during that entire period."

The report concluded that the FBI Rules of Engagement at Ruby Ridge flagrantly violated the U.S. Constitution: "The Constitution allows no person to become 'fair game' for deadly force without law enforcement evaluating the threat that person poses, even when, as occurred here, the evaluation must be made in a split second." The report portrays the rules of engagement as practically a license to kill: "The Constitution places the decision on whether to use deadly force on the individual agent; the Rules attempted to usurp this responsibility."

FBI headquarters rejected an initial operation plan because there was no provision to even attempt to negotiate the surrender of the suspects. The plan was revised to include a negotiation provision -- but subsequent FBI action made that provision a nullity. FBI snipers took their positions around the Weaver cabin a few minutes after 5 p.m. on Aug. 22. Within an hour, every adult in the cabin was either dead or severely wounded -- even though they had not fired a shot at any FBI agent.

Randy Weaver, Mr. Harris, and 16-year-old Sara Weaver stepped out of the cabin a few minutes before 6 p.m. to go to the shed where Sammy's body lay. FBI sniper Lon Horiuchi shot Randy Weaver in the back. As Randy Weaver, Mr. Harris, and Sara Weaver struggled to get back into the cabin, Vicki Weaver stood in the cabin doorway holding a baby. Agent Horiuchi fired again; his bullet passed through a window in the door, hit Vicki Weaver in the head, killing her instantly, and then hit Mr. Harris in the chest.

At the subsequent trial, the government claimed that Messrs. Weaver and Harris were shot because they had threatened to shoot at a helicopter containing FBI officials. Because of insufficient evidence, the federal judge threw out the charge that Messrs. Weaver and Harris threatened the helicopter. The Justice report noted, "The SIOC [Strategic Information and Operations Center at FBI headquarters] Log indicates that shots were fired during the events of August 22.... We have found no evidence during this inquiry that shots fired at any helicopter during the Ruby Ridge crisis. The erroneous entry was never corrected." (The Idaho jury found Messrs. Weaver and Harris innocent on almost all charges.)

The Justice Department task force expressed grave doubts about the wisdom of the FBI strategy: "From information received at the Marshals Service, FBI management had reason to believe that the Weaver/Harris group would respond to a helicopter in the vicinity of the cabin by coming outside with firearms. Notwithstanding this knowledge, they placed sniper/observers on the adjacent mountainside with instructions that they could and should shoot armed members of the group, if they came out of the cabin. Their use of the helicopter near the cabin invited an accusation that the helicopter was intentionally used to draw the Weaver group out of the cabin."

The task force was extremely critical of Agent Horiuchi's second shot: "Since the exchange of gunfire [the previous day], no one at the cabin had fired a shot. Indeed, they had not even returned fire in response to Horiuchi's first shot. Furthermore, at the time of the second shot, Harris and others outside the cabin were retreating, not attacking. They were not retreating to an area where they would present a danger to the public at large...."

Regarding Agent Horiuchi's killing of Vicki Weaver, the task force concluded, "y fixing his cross hairs on the door when he believed someone was behind it, he placed the children and Vicki Weaver at risk, in violation of even the special Rules of Engagement.... In our opinion he needlessly and unjustifiably endangered the persons whom he thought might be behind the door."

The Justice Department task force was especially appalled that the adults were gunned down before receiving any warning or demand to surrender: "While the operational plan included a provision for a surrender demand, that demand was not made until after the shootings.... The lack of a planned 'call out' as the sniper/observers deployed is significant because the Weavers were known to leave the cabin armed when vehicles or airplanes approached. The absence of such a plan subjected the Government to charges that it was setting Weaver up for attack." Mr. Bovard writes often on public policy.

 

FBI Assault At Ruby Ridge

In 1992, the U.S. federal government conducted a military siege of a rural Idaho family, ultimately killing Randy Weaver's dog, son and wife. The government's behavior in the incident can only be described as sickening.

Federal agents set Randy Weaver up on weapons charges. Attempting to infiltrate a white supremacist group, the BATF entrapped Weaver into selling them two shotguns. When he refused to cooperate with them, federal agents lied in order to get support for their retaliation.

The U.S. government murdered Randy Weaver's son and wife during a military siege of Ruby Ridge. Four hundred armed federal agents conducted a siege of the Weavers' mountain home, first killing Randy Weaver's dog, then his son, then his wife.

Weaver was found innocent of all serious charges. In a 1993 trial, Randy Weaver and his friend were found innocent of weapons and murder charges. Weaver was found guilty of not appearing in court on the original charges.

Later investigations criticized the federal agents. The Justice Department's own report recommended criminal prosecution of federal agents; the surviving Weavers won $3.1 million in civil damages.

The U.S. Senate criticized federal law enforcement for their roles. In September 1995, the Senate held hearings on the Ruby Ridge incident, and in December, released its report criticizing the FBI and other federal law enforcement agencies.

 

None Of The Agents Or Supervisors Were Ever Prosecuted Or Even Fire If Anything Promotions Were Handed Out.

 

This was and still is to this day a watershed moment for alot of the anti-
government feeling in the country, especially among the far right and White Nationalist/racist
struggle. I am glad they got something otu of this, though. Although, that can't be much
compensation for having your son and wife brutally murdered before your eyes.

 

You Will Pay for This Someday





Thursday, May 14, 1998; 4:05 p.m. EDT: BOISE, Idaho (AP) -- A federal judge Thursday dismissed involuntary manslaughter charges against the FBI sharpshooter who killed the wife of white separatist Randy Weaver during the 1992 siege at Ruby Ridge, Idaho. U.S. District Judge Edward Lodge accepted the Justice Department argument that Lon Horiuchi was acting in the line of duty when he fired and was protected by the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which keeps federal agents from state prosecution for actions within the scope of their job.

It is now a federal agent's "duty" to shoot nursing mothers in the face.

The argument, "I vass only following orders," which failed the Nazis so righteously at Nuremberg is now enshrined in America.

Anything a federal agent does - as long as it can be stretched to be considered within the scope of his job - is now above any state law, anywhere in this land.

I just learned a few minutes ago that Horiuchi walked free. I may not be entirely coherent expressing my loathing. He had only been charged with involuntary manslaughter. Involuntary manslaughter, for god's sake! It was a token charge. A slap on the wrist. Nothing but a gesture in the direction of justice. It was the least, the very least, we had a right to expect from even an unjust government.

Yet for Judge Edward Lodge, Janet Reno and the federal Justice Department, it was too much. Allow one of their own to suffer any consequence for his own actions? Never. Allow a mere rural county government to imagine it could seek even token justice against an aristocrat? Don't be absurd. We are the federal government. We are Supreme.

Horiuchi ought to die. Ought at least to spend many years in prison, thinking about what he did. Instead, he gets to go home and laugh with his FBI buddies about how he got away with it. Just like they did at Waco. Just like future assassins will, as long as they work for the FBI or ATF or Marshals Service, IRS, Forest Service, HUD...or any of the other government agencies that now arm their agents, operate SWAT teams and play with military weapons.

I don't know whether an elite sniper like Mr. Lon Horiuchi hobnobs with regular FBI troops. But I can picture Horiuchi hoisting a celebratory beer with the agent seen in Waco: The Rules of Engagement, joking (Or was it bragging?) about what a trained and powerful killer he is.

Nothing new, nothing new. There's nothing new in federal murder. Nothing new in jackboot tactics. And they've been getting away with it all along, so why should anyone be so outraged now? Just because one more judge-member-of-the-club protects one more federal good ole boy?

Objectively, I'd say it's the use of the Constitution's supremacy clause this way - to give carte blanche to any crime a federal employee cares to commit. Even a casual reading of the Constitution - by an honest person, that is - reveals that clause was never intended to turn federal agents into a privileged class, exempt from all state punishment for crimes.

But that isn't it. There's nothing new in the Constitution being abused. Nothing new in corrupt judges and twisted rulings. Nothing new in federal arrogance. Nothing new.

For me it's more personal and more difficult to express.

I know that, for a lot of people in the freedom movement, it was Waco that moved them beyond doubt and into irredeemable disgust. But for me, the horrors of Waco have seemed so huge they've been an abstraction. Unless I'm hearing tape of the little Davidian girl begging the BATF sniper/negotiator not to come in and kill her...or unless I'm seeing those very normal "religious nuts" on the videotapes they made of themselves during the siege...unless I'm watching that terrible film...my mind has never really been able to grasp, in any personal terms, what happened at Waco.

But the moment I first saw the wavering, fuzzy footage of the Weaver cabin on August 22, 1992, my heart tore out of my chest. My lungs wouldn't hold any more air.

I can't even remember, at that point, whether they'd announced that Sammy was dead. Certainly, they were still pretending they had no intention of killing Vicki. (Only later would I see the documents and hear the testimony that made it clear that getting rid of Vicki, one way or another, was a top priority, since the government perceived her as the strong, decision-making member of the Weaver family.)

All I remember is that little cabin in the woods and all the forces of the federal government brought against one isolated family. They were calling them white supremacists at that point. I didn't know whether it was true or not; in any case, it wasn't a reason for 200...400?...agents to descend upon one plywood cabin. It wasn't a reason. What was the reason? That Randy was an "illegal gun dealer" as they put it then? Two hundred agents? Four hundred? Tanks? Humvees? Helicopters? Against a single family on a mountaintop? What was the reason?

And if these people, this family in the cabin, were so evil, so dangerous, so depraved, so violent, why would hundreds of neighbors and friends stand at barricades on their behalf for days? Why would women cry for them? Why would men demand a halt?

All I knew, as I sat there in my own one-room cabin set in its own dark and isolated woods, was that, wherever the truth lay, it didn't lay in the mouths of the government spokesmen. Whatever was true or false about that family up there, everything was false about those who sought to destroy them.

Everything.

And everything was false. And everything is false. And so a murderer walks free. And more murderers will walk free tomorrow. The same false and arrogant government that murdered Vicki Weaver will murder again.

They don't realize how much better off they'd be if they allowed just a few of their most public villains, like Horiuchi and the planners of the Waco raid, to receive public wrist slaps. They don't realize that if we saw even token agents receive token punishments, many of us would be appeased. "See," we'd say, "justice is done. There's hope. The system hasn't entirely failed yet."

But what can we say when, year after year, monsters walk free? They don't realize that the need for justice doesn't go away, just because justice goes away. They don't realize what a fury they turn loose in the land.

It's not their fury that will ultimately be the most terrible. Those bureaucrats with guns don't have enough true, gut passion to be furious. All they have is sadism, brutality and a cool, calculating will to power. If rage could be measured in kilowatts or megatons, the rage of American freedom lovers would be as powerful as a dozen atom bombs. Understand. This power will go somewhere. It will drive the engine of our hope and despair. It will. You will not murder and celebrate your murders this way forever. You will not.

</B>

 

[Note regarding links: Much of the Waco information once available on the web has "disappeared" and quite a few of the links on this page have expired (a few are marked as such) or no longer lead to the original page. An expired link at least shows that the page once existed. Some pages which no longer exist on the web can still be recovered by entering the URL (right mouse click on the link to get the URL) into the Wayback Machine.]

​

Many people believe that David Koresh (or the Branch Davidians) were responsible for the deaths of the 74 men, women and children who died in the inferno at Waco on April 19, 1993. This is the story that the FBI put out. It is a lie. The guns they had were legal. The local sheriff investigated and found no basis for complaints against them. These were law-abiding American citizens, even if they thought differently to most other folks. They trusted the U.S. Constitution to ensure their political rights, but they were murdered by agents acting under the authority of the U.S. government. Read this page if you believe otherwise. If you still have doubts, get the video Rules of Engagement for visual evidence. Or read the book Armageddon in Waco. Or see the film Waco: A New Revelation.

Waco occurred under the presidency of Bill Clinton, with Janet Reno and Wesley Clark in supporting roles. Already back in 1993 the US government demonstrated its contempt for the American people by carrying out a massacre in order to "demonstrate" (on prime time TV) its supposed "authority" (a tactic favored by fascist governments). Following the usurpation of the presidency in 2000 by the psychopath George W. Bush, and the subsequent installation of the insane John Ashcroft as Bush's Himmler, things became much worse. On 9/11 about forty times as many people were murdered as at Waco. In both cases the murderers have so far gone unpunished.

[size=-1]Few Americans realize that on February 28, 1993 when BATF agents in National Guard helicopters zoomed in on the Branch Davidians' church and home, Mount Carmel Center, they did so with guns blazing, like Americans raiding a Vietnamese village in that far off war. ... It is likely FBI agents deliberately sabotaged negotiations with Davidians to prevent their exiting Mount Carmel. Their goal was to destroy the building and its damaging evidence, even if that meant the massacre of dozens of men, women and children, all witnesses to the brutal attack. — Carol Moore: Overview of Davidian Massacre [/size]

​

After the February raid by the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) of David Koresh's dissident religious community at Waco, Texas, the FBI and the U.S. Army took over, mounting a 51-day siege. This included such psy-war tactics as sleep deprivation of the inhabitants of the community by means of all-night broadcasts of recordings of the screams of rabbits being slaughtered.

Finally, despite David Koresh's pledge to surrender upon completion of his written explanation of the meaning of the Seven Seals, the FBI and the Army attacked. At dawn on April 19, 1993, and throughout the morning, tanks rammed holes in the main building and pumped (in the FBI's words) "massive amounts" of CS gas into the building, despite knowing that inside were more than a dozen children. The tanks demolished parts of the compound and created tunnels for the wind to blow through. The buildings at this point were saturated with inflammable CS gas and spilled kerosene.

Around midday two U.S. military pyrotechnic devices were fired into the main building, igniting a fire which (because of the holes in the walls allowing the wind to gust through) spread rapidly through the complex of buildings and became an inferno. 74 men, women and children died — including twelve children younger than five years of age. Fire trucks were prevented by the FBI from approaching the inferno. After the compound had burned down the BATF flag was hoisted aloft to signify 'victory'. Subsequently the burned-out ruin was razed in an attempt to remove all evidence of this premeditated murder of innocent civilians by agents of the U.S. government. Thus occured an atrocity which many Americans believe could never happen in their country. A look at the evidence presented in the film Waco: Rules of Engagement (and in the BBC documentary broadcast in the U.K. on November 28, 1998) shows that it did happen.

The lawyer for one of the survivors said at one of the U.S. government 'investigations' (or rather, whitewashes): In this country when people are accused of a crime they are arrested and given a trial — that's 'due process'. If found guilty of murder then maybe they are killed. We don't just kill them first — which is what happened at Waco.



Here are links to documents on this website concerning this tragedy.

• Linda Thompson: What Happened at Waco
  
  [size=-1]After the BATF and FBI learned that the American Justice Federation had released a press release stating that the use of military troops against United States citizens violated federal law, specifically, the Posse Comitatus act, the BATF released a cover story, claiming that the tanks were "really" not Army, they were national guard, and had been brought in under the "Drug interdiction act" because they had heard there was a "methamphetamine lab" — three weeks after the FBI had already publicly announced there was never any question whatsoever of drug involvement.[/size]
  
• Linda Thompson: The Big Lie
  
• By Carol Moore:
  
  • The Davidian Massacre
  • Report On Senate Waco Hearings
  • Waco Questions Congress Refuses to Answer
• Burning Questions, a review by Jacob Sullum, a senior editor of REASON, of Armageddon in Waco and two other books about Waco: The Ashes of Waco: An Investigation and Why Waco?: Cults and the Battle for Religious Freedom in America.
  
• Transcript of Waco Negotiations
  

[size=+1]Armageddon in Waco[/size]
Critical Perspectives on the Branch Davidian Conflict
Edited by Stuart A. Wright
The University of Chicago Press, 1995

[size=-1]On February 28, 1993, the United States Bureau of Alcohol[/size]​

 

http://www.serendipity.li/waco.html Armageddon in Waco
Critical Perspectives on the Branch Davidian Conflict
Edited by Stuart A. Wright
The University of Chicago Press, 1995

 

Are we to believe the Missions/tactics/training/munitions/equipment/demeanor of civilian police (cops) are the same as the military (National Gaurd).

Are the two organizations interchangable?

ie:
"(2) Should the Guard have been called to Kent and Kent State University? Could local law enforcement personnel have handled any situations? Were the Guard properly trained for this type of assignment?"
http://dept.kent.edu/sociology/lewis/lewihen.htm


Someone needs to do a tad more thorough Thinking...

 

only the very small swat teams have full automatic weapons .a regular cop is armed with guns any civilian can legally own. i dont seee how a cop is related to a national guard or any military branch . lets not forgert regular citizens with class 3 lincense can = "and do" = also own full automatic weapons. with destructive licence you can play with explosive.. civilians of course would be limited to small arms. tanks,jetfighter etc would be imposible to buy from the military or factory.

 

are you saying you wouldn't become 'violent' of angry if there were national guards men aiming guns at your head, when your just excersizing your rights that should be protected by these people, but instead are being persecuted for it. now to me, that is very unamerican. and enough with the rocks already.there is a HUGE difference between throwing some rocks and some fully armoured a trained men with snipers. so lets not suck that small fact for everything its worth (or not worth). and lets not forget the fact that these students were murdered for legally protesting.
anyway...enough arguing...i was still wondering if anyone could just give me their own little 'ditty' on how these guards made a mockery of the constitution, unnecessary killing, death to peacmakers, or something along those lines, thanks
<3

 

Dear Pazzapantie

No, they did not have the right to protest on campus grounds. This was clearly established.
BTW... you, me or anyone else have the right to protest but not necessarily wherever we decide to.
In this case, they did NOT have the right to protest on the grounds.

They did not have guns pointed at their heads and nobody was murdered.

Most people (who study these things) will agree that once cornered, wearing face masks and gear - the Cops were rightfully afraid of the PRO VIOLENCE protestors who were throwing tear gas cannisters and rocks.

Gravel certainly can look and feel very similar to small arms fire. Dont downplay this because its one thing EVERYONE including protestors themselves testified about.

The real exact moment where things went wrong comes down to one simple thing.
A disorganised group at the front fires warning shots
Problem - Half of them fire warning shots in the air.
The other half fire into the ground.

In the heat of the moment I can definately see how a handful of them pulled triggers too soon, raised or lowered to try and follow the others or went to lower and fired too quickly (ending up firing into the crowd)

Of course you can theorise that there were several cops who took advantage of the situation to delibertaly kill a couple of those liberal jew hippies.
Well.. the courts dont agree with you and i suppose we wil never know.

fortunately, nowadays there is a clearly understood way to fire warning shots. UP.
It rarely goes that far though.. now they have rubber bullets instead.

 

dear desperate-man.
do you like to chew up people with opposing views and spit them back out?
guess your not the conversation type. nobody was murdered???? your so caled um..."cops" were far from cornered, people who were shot, got hit from around 200-300 feet away. as i said earlier, th tear gas from throw at the students protesting first. so the courts dont agree with me..and that means nothing to me. i wasnt there, you werent there so lets stop pretending to know all aspects of this situation.
any constructive thoughts on my previous post from some one else?
<3

 

This is getting silly. Some of the guard fired into the air and some aimed at and fired at the people in the parking lot.

 

I think its fascinating to see some poster like Pazzapanzie feel its perfectly alright to competely insult and contradict my analysis.. deny and speculate wildly .. then become very much 'offended' when they are called on it.
Suddenly IM the one who is being a problem for not allowing them to insult and just contradict LOL!

Both of you are making unfounded allegations.
Period.

You are insisting the Guardsmen deliberately aimed and fired at people.
Your totally in your right to IMAGINE THAT MIGHT HAVE HAPPENED.

However, I was lucky enough to see news footage of the event.
Numerous protestors and students were interviewed right after the incident
(many were protestors themselves)

Voluntarily, they themselves explained that several student deliberately began throwing rocks (gravel) at the cops.
The students themselves reported that is when the 'front line' of Guards suddenly appeared to become very alarmed and fired shots.

The protesters and witnesses themselves told investigators that most fired in the air OR into the ground.
This is a provable fact of life because forensic people did indeed FIND THE BULLETS exactly where people described the shots happening.

Those who watch 'CSI' type shows will be well aware that investigators can all but trace the exact angles and distance of all those bullets (around 70 i believe).

Dont be stupid and just reply with another "No.. they aimed and shot AT the students to murder them!"
or
"I dont like you Desapman because your view is different than mine - therefore YOU are the troublemaker'

Stop being contrarians just because you desperately want some fantasy world where Cops are all Right wing Christians and 'The Man' - and you somehow are justice and righteous to oppose them.

I have news for you - those hippies are now aging 'Boomers' who ARE THE ESTABLISHMENT, COPS, ARMY and YOUR BOSS.

I fucking DARE Kent students to try even HALF the illegal protest nowadays.
Baby Boomer Establishment would fucking crush it instantly!

 

they really should teach them to aim better if they cant even successfully shoot the sky and the ground, that is like missing the ocean from the shore. seriously, you can't honestly believe that.....believe it or not, some people get into careers where you get to shoot a gun cuz they really want to shoot a gun.....and not at the ground either.